Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:55:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"Hank©" wrote in message
b.com...


On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote:

On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the
trigger guard. I wouldn't want
anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger!


There is *no* safety on that pistol.

Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****.


If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols
are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff
double action triggers to prevent accidental firing.

----------------------------------------------------

Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all,
but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so
many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety
button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the
trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a
safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no
exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here,
don't have a safety. Makes no sense.



Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling
a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms
have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a
safety.

Here are the specs on the PPK.

Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to
pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled
back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in
the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W
revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them:

http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Which has nothing to do with the point.

My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety
differently from one without?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know
jack**** about pistols.

It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything
is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis.

Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


It is clear I know a hell of a lot more about semi-auto pistols than you
do, and your arrogance will keep you ignorant.

Then answer the question:

Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote:









On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"Hank " wrote in message
b.com...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote:

On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the
trigger guard. I wouldn't want
anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger!

There is *no* safety on that pistol.

Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****.

If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols
are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff
double action triggers to prevent accidental firing.

----------------------------------------------------

Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all,
but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so
many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety
button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the
trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a
safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no
exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here,
don't have a safety. Makes no sense.

Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling
a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms
have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a
safety.

Here are the specs on the PPK.

Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to
pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled
back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in
the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W
revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them:

http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety.

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Which has nothing to do with the point.

My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety
differently from one without?

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know
jack**** about pistols.

Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than
anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's

Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services
who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in
the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot
of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though.



The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault
rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those
pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during
his time in our war against the people of Vietnam.

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?

And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as
'our war'.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the
United States Against the People of Vietnam.

How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what
I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant.

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On 3/30/2013 6:32 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote:
...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife
loves the size.

While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td

Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear
decides to break into the house.

Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!

Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag.

You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That
might be interesting!

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun.


I would imagine it's like boats, any compromise, is well, compromise...

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:21:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote:









On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"Hank " wrote in message
b.com...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote:

On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the
trigger guard. I wouldn't want
anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger!

There is *no* safety on that pistol.

Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****.

If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols
are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff
double action triggers to prevent accidental firing.

----------------------------------------------------

Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all,
but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so
many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety
button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the
trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a
safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no
exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here,
don't have a safety. Makes no sense.

Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling
a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms
have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a
safety.

Here are the specs on the PPK.

Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to
pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled
back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in
the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W
revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them:

http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety.

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Which has nothing to do with the point.

My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety
differently from one without?

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know
jack**** about pistols.

Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than
anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's

Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services
who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in
the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot
of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though.



The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault
rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those
pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during
his time in our war against the people of Vietnam.

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?

And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as
'our war'.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the
United States Against the People of Vietnam.

You're the one who used the phrase 'our war', and you supported the war effort. Thanks.


How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what
I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant.

ESAD, you've expounded several times on your wealth of pistol knowledge. You've several times
commented on the lack of 'safeties' on the P250 and earlier on the M&P. Here's your chance to
demonstrate some of that knowledge - or you could just say, "I don't know."

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On 4/1/13 11:40 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:21:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote:









On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"Hank " wrote in message
b.com...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote:

On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the
trigger guard. I wouldn't want
anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger!

There is *no* safety on that pistol.

Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****.

If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols
are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff
double action triggers to prevent accidental firing.

----------------------------------------------------

Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all,
but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so
many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety
button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the
trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a
safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no
exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here,
don't have a safety. Makes no sense.

Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling
a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms
have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a
safety.

Here are the specs on the PPK.

Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to
pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled
back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in
the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W
revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them:

http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety.

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Which has nothing to do with the point.

My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety
differently from one without?

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know
jack**** about pistols.

Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than
anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's

Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services
who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in
the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot
of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though.



The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault
rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those
pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during
his time in our war against the people of Vietnam.

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?

And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as
'our war'.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the
United States Against the People of Vietnam.

You're the one who used the phrase 'our war', and you supported the war effort. Thanks.


How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what
I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant.

ESAD, you've expounded several times on your wealth of pistol knowledge. You've several times
commented on the lack of 'safeties' on the P250 and earlier on the M&P. Here's your chance to
demonstrate some of that knowledge - or you could just say, "I don't know."

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.



What's the point in enlightening you? It'll be more interesting to see
what happens because of your ignorance.

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On 3/30/2013 5:54 PM, Hank© wrote:
On 3/30/2013 5:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 5:07 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 3/30/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote:



Have you ever tried any of the sub-sonic ammo? I haven't and am
curious how much they diminish the "crack" when they are fired.



It's a noticeable difference, but they're still pretty loud rounds. I've
seen demos of suppressors with subsonic rounds, and on a .22LR, the
sound is still there, but it's very soft and does not sound anything
like a firearm.

----------------------------------------

I bought a Ruger Air Magnum Pellet rifle a couple of months ago thinking
I could use it for target practice on my property. The nearest
neighbor's house is about 400 feet from where I'd be shooting and in the
opposite direction of where I'd be aiming, so I figured it wouldn't be a
bother to him.

Boy, was I surprised. The damn thing is louder than the Marlin .22
lever action I have. Muzzle velocity is actually higher. 1200 fps for
the standard lead pellets and 1400 fps for the light, alloy pellets.
Very accurate, but it weighs a ton.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/airgundepot_2254_185840498





Aging minds think alike. I'm interested in the suppressor because
there's an area, a dry creek bed, on our property that is legally
distant enough from neighboring properties, to be used as a target
range. The creek bed is 15 to 20 feet deep where I'd like to set up a
range, and it curves where the backstop would be. Ideal. Except...I
don't want to disturb the neighbors and...the snakes...I am sure are
down there somewhere. :) A suppressor would allow me to use my .22lr
pistol and rifle down there.

If it's not on an authorized range you are not allowed to fire a gun in
Maryland. I suppose hunting is illegal in Maryland as well.

It's a liberal thing.. as long as you don't think it will bother
anybody, you can break the law in Maryland I guess.

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On 4/1/13 11:56 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/30/2013 5:54 PM, Hank© wrote:
On 3/30/2013 5:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 5:07 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 3/30/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote:



Have you ever tried any of the sub-sonic ammo? I haven't and am
curious how much they diminish the "crack" when they are fired.



It's a noticeable difference, but they're still pretty loud rounds.
I've
seen demos of suppressors with subsonic rounds, and on a .22LR, the
sound is still there, but it's very soft and does not sound anything
like a firearm.

----------------------------------------

I bought a Ruger Air Magnum Pellet rifle a couple of months ago
thinking
I could use it for target practice on my property. The nearest
neighbor's house is about 400 feet from where I'd be shooting and in
the
opposite direction of where I'd be aiming, so I figured it wouldn't
be a
bother to him.

Boy, was I surprised. The damn thing is louder than the Marlin .22
lever action I have. Muzzle velocity is actually higher. 1200 fps
for
the standard lead pellets and 1400 fps for the light, alloy pellets.
Very accurate, but it weighs a ton.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/airgundepot_2254_185840498





Aging minds think alike. I'm interested in the suppressor because
there's an area, a dry creek bed, on our property that is legally
distant enough from neighboring properties, to be used as a target
range. The creek bed is 15 to 20 feet deep where I'd like to set up a
range, and it curves where the backstop would be. Ideal. Except...I
don't want to disturb the neighbors and...the snakes...I am sure are
down there somewhere. :) A suppressor would allow me to use my .22lr
pistol and rifle down there.

If it's not on an authorized range you are not allowed to fire a gun in
Maryland. I suppose hunting is illegal in Maryland as well.

It's a liberal thing.. as long as you don't think it will bother
anybody, you can break the law in Maryland I guess.


Poor PsychoSnotty: mentally unbalanced and dumb enough to believe
FlaJim/Hank/Mired, who only posts here to get a rise out of morons
like...PsychoSnotty.

Firing a gun on private property in Maryland is under the purview of
local law, not state law, and the laws vary fairly widely. Calvert
County is still mostly rural.

"Code of Calvert County
Title 15, subtitle 1.
15-102. Permission required.
(a)Except for a law enforcement officer in the line of duty or as
provided in Subsection (b) of this section, a person may not discharge a
firearm:
(1)Within 150 yards of a building which can be used as a residence,
whether occupied or vacant; or
(2)On any property owned by another person or by Calvert County without
evidence of permission on his person."

The part of the dry creek bed I'd like to use as an informal range is
more than 150 yards from any neighbor's house.

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On 3/31/2013 3:19 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:01:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 7:44 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote:
...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife
loves the size.

While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td

Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear
decides to break into the house.

Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!

Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag.

You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That
might be interesting!

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun.

Yeah. I wouldn't want to make this Sig a .45. I'd rather it be full size.

On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want
anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger!


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.



There is *no* safety on that pistol.

Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****.

Now go out and have a great Easter Sunday!


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.



You really have trouble with language. SIG makes fine weapons. But the
particular pistol you bought does *not* have a real safety. A real
safety prevents the trigger from being pulled to the point where the
weapon will fire.

You and S&W define 'safety' differently, but, ESADAFOD, you are correct of course.

I guess I'll just have to buy a couple CZ's and have a few thousand dollars worth of modifications
done to them.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Or you could read about them on google and pretend you have one too:)

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:56:06 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 11:40 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:21:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote:









On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"Hank " wrote in message
b.com...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote:

On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the
trigger guard. I wouldn't want
anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger!

There is *no* safety on that pistol.

Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****.

If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols
are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff
double action triggers to prevent accidental firing.

----------------------------------------------------

Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all,
but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so
many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety
button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the
trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a
safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no
exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here,
don't have a safety. Makes no sense.

Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling
a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms
have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a
safety.

Here are the specs on the PPK.

Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to
pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled
back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in
the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W
revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them:

http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety.

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Which has nothing to do with the point.

My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety
differently from one without?

Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know
jack**** about pistols.

Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than
anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's

Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services
who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in
the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot
of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though.



The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault
rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those
pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during
his time in our war against the people of Vietnam.

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?

And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as
'our war'.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the
United States Against the People of Vietnam.

You're the one who used the phrase 'our war', and you supported the war effort. Thanks.


How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what
I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant.

ESAD, you've expounded several times on your wealth of pistol knowledge. You've several times
commented on the lack of 'safeties' on the P250 and earlier on the M&P. Here's your chance to
demonstrate some of that knowledge - or you could just say, "I don't know."

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.



What's the point in enlightening you? It'll be more interesting to see
what happens because of your ignorance.

Tough question, huh?

Perhaps "I don't know" should be your response, as it's obvious you can't answer a simple question.



Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
 

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:05:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Aging minds think alike.

How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.